Re:It's time to make computing personal again
by musicale on Sunday January 19, 2025 @08:01PM
(#42763860)
I think it means increase usage of the thing itself, and I think it's a good insight. While there is a natural supply and demand curve, unscrupulous growth-focused businesses optimize their products (unhealthy food) and services (gambling, social media, mobile games) for high levels of consumption (at least for a portion of vulnerable users), irrespective of harmful effects. It's the tobacco industry model reborn.
Re:It's time to make computing personal again
by johnnyanmac on Sunday January 19, 2025 @08:01PM
(#42763859)
I think a more generous interpretation of this is simply one that is critiquing planned obsolescence and addicting algorithm. Some things need to increase usage by nature, but how many services have you used that really needed a subscription as a necessary model to work?
Re:It's time to make computing personal again
by XorNot on Sunday January 19, 2025 @08:37PM
(#42764049)
My hot take is planned obsolescence doesn't exist.
It's a side effect of items being built to cost, and the marketing phenomenon that consumers follow fashion trends.
Your car doesn't have planned obsolescence: it has a warranty period. If you want a longer one, you'll pay more because that is not a free service to provide.
Re:It's time to make computing personal again
by plaguehammer on Saturday January 25, 2025 @02:06PM
(#42823751)
That’s a reductionist view. Have you read “Made to Break” by Giles Slade? A great book on this subject. Make no mistake, there’s a lot of deliberate planning and effort that goes into designing things to break after a point in time, for nothing else but profit, the environment be damned.
...the quote, *AS A SOUNDBITE*, only sounds good on a surface level, but collapses under the slightest test. All products in some form or another increase the usage of resources in order to reach a certain goal.
https://www.wheresyoured.at/the-anti-economy/
The article, where the quote originates from, contextualizes the quote marking (a) the difference between products in service of an actual goal, (b) products that are only meant to look good on a balance sheet, and (c) how companies have morphed towards (b) in order to attract investor funds and increase share prices / company market values.
The quote, BY ITSELF AND WITHOUT CONTEXT, is a twisted Neo-luddist version of its original self.